European Colonialism in the Middle East: Iran and Egypt

Introduction: European Colonialism and the Middle East

History reveals how European powers carved out their own colonies in the Middle East, partly for the sheer power of ownership and domination, and partly due to Europe's need for the valuable resources that the region could provide. These power grabs had a profound effect on the lives of the people in those nations. This paper reviews and critiques two countries in the Middle East that came under the colonial authority of European nations — Egypt and Kuwait — examining both the historical processes of colonization and the lasting consequences for politics, culture, and regional stability.

The Literature on Impacts of European Colonial Activity

David Seddon describes colonialism as the "process and later the system" through which the powers in Europe "intervened in, occupied, settled and defined as 'colonies'" (Seddon, 2004). Moreover, some refer to colonialism as a particular kind of "imperialism" because it is essentially one country conquering another, dominating it, and imposing its political and military will over the subdued nation. The process of European colonialism in the Middle East began with the French invasion of what later became Algeria, Seddon explains. The more aggressive colonization of the Middle East began "in the late 19th century through the first half of the 20th century," Seddon writes.

Colonialism combines "military, political and cultural force," and sometimes the colonial power imposes "discriminatory labour and trade relationships," according to Paul Gillen and Devleena Ghosh in Colonialism & Modernity. Those colonized are "compelled to accept the laws and political institutions of their conquerors… their ways of life and patterns of culture are altered, sometimes to the point where their language and traditions are lost" (Gillen, p. 45).

In the 19th century, European states had already seized and controlled colonies in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere, but the Middle East had "never been systematically colonized" — with the possible exception of France in Algeria and Egypt. As the oil industry developed in the Middle East, driven by "capitalist investors, large companies and foreign governments," Middle Eastern rulers became increasingly aware "and disturbed by what appeared to be a new form of indirect imperialism" (Social Studies School Service, 2002). That imperialism was in fact colonization, and the motive was to make "huge profits" from "guaranteed oil supplies" (Social Studies School Service, 2002).

By the close of the 19th century, England had "successfully colonized much of India," the French (led by Napoleon Bonaparte) had colonized Egypt two years before the 19th century (1798), and France had invaded Algeria in 1830 and begun its occupation of Tunisia in 1881 (Zayd et al., 2006). In Egypt, as early as 1798, citizens began to be affected socially and culturally by their colonizers. "Muslims became aware of a different lifestyle introduced into their everyday lives… their colonizers looked and dressed differently, behaved and spoke differently," Zayd explains. The colonizers ate forbidden food (haram), drank wine (forbidden in Muslim societies), and "interacted freely with women who were not their mahram" — that is, a brother, father, husband, or relative (Zayd et al., 2006).

Egypt as a European Protectorate and Colony

The upper Nile basin had been of great interest to the British in the 18th century, since the route to India was far shorter by traveling to Egypt and then overland than by sailing all the way around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. Napoleon had underscored Egypt's strategic importance in 1798 when he arrived and defeated the Mameluke Army at the Battle of the Pyramids. After the British defeated the French at the Battle of the Sphinx in 1801, Egypt came under British control until 1805, when the new Egyptian leader Muhammad Ali defeated them in 1807. The French financed the construction of the Suez Canal, which opened in 1869. Britain later joined France in bailing out Egypt's troubled finances, and in effect "this stewardship was little more than a joint form of colonization" (British Empire, 2002).

Rebellion against the British was launched in 1882 by the Egyptian army. When France refused to cooperate in the bombardment of Alexandria, Britain seized the opportunity and ended up "masters of Egypt" (British Empire, 2002). Controlling the Suez Canal — a vital and rapid route to India — was a tremendous tactical and strategic victory for Britain.

In 1922, the protectorate arrangement between Britain and Egypt officially came to an end, although Britain still retained a significant degree of power over the canal. When India achieved its independence from Britain in 1947, "the British rationale for holding on to any power over Egypt and the Suez Canal had been lost" (British Empire, 2002). Britain was hanging on to the canal "by her fingertips," but a "new kind of radicalism had entered Egyptian politics." This was partly Britain's fault: the creation of Israel brought Muslim radicals together, and violence was directed at the British and the ruling Egyptian party, which was perceived as pro-British. "Guerilla warfare broke out in the Canal Zone," and in 1951 a state of emergency was declared. The British military response to that emergency proved highly controversial.

Meanwhile, Britain supported the United States and the United States supported Israel, so anger and violence against British holdings intensified. Egyptian president Nasser began acquiring military equipment from the Soviet Union, and it became clear that British power over Egypt was finished. Britain signed the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty with Nasser in 1954, effectively calling for England to remove its troops and withdraw from Egypt. The real force that pushed Britain out was nationalism: Nasser channeled popular rejection of British arrogance to consolidate the support of his people. This episode illustrates how European colonialism shaped the Middle East and produced effects on Muslim peoples and culture that remain visible today.

When Britain used military force in a final attempt to hold the Suez Canal, a fierce political battle erupted in London. Writing in History Today, A.J. Stockwell notes that "advocates of firm government at home and abroad were morally outraged" that Britain did not use full military force and essentially conceded the canal to Nasser (Stockwell, 2006). The controversy "divided the nation, split political parties, divided families, cut through generations" (Stockwell, 2006, p. 2). Nevertheless, for Islamic institutions in Egypt, Britain's time of dominance had clearly passed.

Conclusion

The broader point is that European colonialism in the Middle East did not merely extract resources and impose culture; it also created the political map of the modern region, drawing borders and establishing state structures that had little organic connection to the populations they governed. The fragility of those structures became painfully apparent once colonial oversight was removed.

After World War I, the victorious powers divided up the Ottoman Empire, and this partition gave rise to the modern state of Iraq, among others. The history of the Middle East — beginning in the 19th century and continuing to the present day — has been shaped by outside forces: colonialism, war, greed, and cultural conflict. An understanding of this history helps explain why the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 faced such profound obstacles from the outset, and why Britain and the United States are regarded with such fierce hostility by significant parts of the Muslim world. The colonial legacy is not merely a matter of historical record; it continues to structure political realities and emotional identities across the region.